Feed a lawyer, or else …

Family Law

And God said, Let there be light…


.

… and God divided the light from the darkness.

.
Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. This singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”,but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the “birth” of our Universe.
.
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.
.
The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form. After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs, so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons.
.
A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion Kelvins and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe’s deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the Universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.
.
Over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the Universe. The four possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, warm dark matter, hot dark matter and baryonic matter.
.
.

And what about “material matter” as defined by legal theory, you may ask…

.

… that is when somebody turned off the light…

..
.

Is legal “material matter” really a dark matter?

.
For those who filed perjury cases and had to deal with legal Einsteins and their interpretation of General Theory of Relativity, let’s shine some light on the topic:
.

The fundamental rule of perjury law is codified in California Penal Code § 123:

“It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that the accused did not know the materiality of the false statement made by him; or that it did not, in fact, affect the proceeding in or for which it was made. It is sufficient that it was material, and might have been used to affect such proceeding.”

Materiality has been defined to include anything “capable of influencing the court on the issue before it, or which has a natural tendency to influence or impede the decision of the decision-making body to whom it is addressed.”

Importantly, when applying the materiality test, California law focuses not on whether, as a matter of historical fact, the false statement probably did influence the outcome of the proceedings, but instead on whether the false statement, at the time it was made, had the tendency to probably influence the outcome of the proceedings.  In other words, under California law, materiality is evaluated from an ex ante, not an ex post perspective.   See, e.g., People v. Poe, 265 Cal.App.2d 385, 71 Cal.Rptr. 161, 164-65 (1968).

Thus, the testimony need not actually have influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding. A potential interference with Court’s decision making is sufficient to establish materiality. The statement need not be material to any particular issue, but may be material to the subject of the inquiry in general[1]. The statement may be material to collateral matters that might influence the outcome of decisions… Thus, a statement is material if it is relevant to a subsidiary issue under consideration[2] or to an issue of credibility.


[1] United States v. Ostertag, 671 F.2d 262 (8th Cir. 1982).

[2] United States v. Sisack, 527 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1975).

.

.

I’m done… Somebody call PG&E. 🙂

September 21, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Keep it in the family …


… and don’t let anybody in.

.

Yet another dueling match with The State Bar of California. These guys don’t write, don’t call, … they simply play possum… 🙂

.

September 15, 2011

Patsy Cobb

Deputy Chief Trial Counsel

The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles,CA90015

RE: Inquiry # 11-0-13436 (Kennedy) and 11-0-13437 (Costa)

.

Dear Ms. Cobb:

I’m writing this letter to voice my protest against The State Bar’s practice of not corresponding with the party that has interest in this case.

On 8/9/2011 I wrote a letter to Audit and Review Unit to request attorney Kennedy’s and attorney Costa’s declaration that “local judge dismissed my case in Civil Court” (per Djinna Gotchis). I find that statement to be untrue because case was never tried in Civil Court. It is patiently unfair to deprive me of evidence that I am entitled to examine (as was recently stated by the First District Court of Appeal in the matter of Sander v. State Bar of California). My letter was never answered.

On 8/22/2011 at 3:30 PM, I called Audit and Review Unit. I talked to a lady from the message center who informed me that calling hours have changed and that calls are not accepted until 4 PM any more. She took a message and promised that somebody will call back tomorrow. No follow up call was received.

On 8/25/2011 at 11:15 AM, after I left a message on Audit and Review Unit’s voice mail, I talked to Zoe and she informed me that you would be a person to contact if I have any problems with feedback from your office.  I received no feedback from Audit and Review Unit after I left a message.

On 9/8/2011 at 11 AM, I called Audit and Review Unit again and left a message. Nobody called back again.

Two days ago around 1 PM, I left a message on your voice mail to call me back and give me an update on the status and to let me know what is happening with my request to review attorney Kennedy’s and attorney Costa’s “declaration”. You did not call back.

I find this lack of correspondence very disturbing as if things are being decided behind the closed doors, and the person that has the greatest interest in the process is shunned from the process.

As I had more than one bad experience with the State Bar (Towery, Gochis and now this) I filled protest with the office of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and case has been opened regarding this matter (Case # S196062). I will keep her office apprised of any further problems I encounter with the State Bar.

I would also like to take this opportunity to request again copies of witness declarations given to Ms. Djinna Gochis by the attorneys Kennedy and Costa, as they seem like yet another falsehood invented by those attorneys to protect themselves.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

.

Sincerely,

________________________

Mirko Vojnovic

.

Cc: Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

.

.

Update, September 22, 2011

.

And you would think they would respond addressing the issues I wrote about, namely -> copies of opposing attorneys’ declarations .  Nope! It’s yet another “sit and wait”. Note that they are referring  to my telephone message dated September 8, 2011.  It took them 12 days for the template letter. I’m surely glad these people do not work in industry. We’d be bankrupt country long time ago.

.

September 16, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 2 Comments

DA DA DA


Ich Lieb Dich Nicht, Du Liebst Mich Nicht  (I love you not, you love me not) -> Trio, 1982

.

Trio: DaDaDa

.

What better song is there to describe my relationship with Santa Clara DA (DA DA) office?

It is monotonous, goes forever, and yet, it is captivating, entertainingly stupid and lyrics fit, too. 🙂

.

Once Upon a Time…

… there was a simple pauper who wrote a letter to a king, asking him to use his royal powers to right some wrongs.

.

Here is my letter to Santa Clara DA Jeffrey Rosen regarding the perjury committed by attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa:

Santa Clara

6/18/2011

To:       Mr. Jeff Rosen, Santa Clara DA

Dear Mr. Rosen,

I am informing you with great sadness that I am accusing your office of aiding and abetting perjury and racketeering and that I find your office guilty of public corruption.

I base my accusations on two time failure by your office to take action when evidence was presented to you showing that attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa committed perjury in Santa Clara Family Court, case 1-05-FL-129014.

I have strong suspicions that Assistant DA Karyn Sinunu Towery is behind this plot. Her husband James Towery was already eliminated from the State Bar when he tried to close my complaint against the same attorneys. His conflict of interest in this case was easily proven through party’s connections with the law firm Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel. The same forces seem to be in place within your office.[1]

First time my case was dismissed when I was told over the phone that attorney Kennedy’s statement (given under the oath) was a “statement of opinion” and not a “statement of the fact” and as such did not constitute perjury. Such conclusion by your office was ridiculous.

Kennedy’s stated in his trial brief Re. Attorney’s fees: “Husband did not produce anything”, referring to stock options and interest I had with my company. However, attorney Kennedy already had my stock options certificate and company offer letter in his possession for several months before he made that statement. The complete documentation with supporting evidence was given to your office. Mr. Ken Rosenblatt was in charge of the inquiry.

Second time I submitted evidence that I obtained through subpoena which proved that Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa committed perjury when they claimed in their sworn declaration that my ex-wife Vesna Vojnovic had TEMPORARY employment with Samsung Hospitality. Documents I provided consisted of attorneys’ declaration, proof that their claim was fraudulent and proof that attorneys already possessed knowledge that their claims were fraudulent, thus proving the intent to commit fraud.  Case was handled by Paul Colin whom I met in the lobby for less than five minutes. He just glanced through the evidence (half inch thick stack of papers) and dismissed the case. From the beginning I was under the impression that he felt very uncomfortable and that he wanted to leave the meeting as soon as possible as if he came to the meeting with the decision already made.

Before I take this matter to the Attorney General, I would like to give you an opportunity to remedy this situation. If you are willing to learn more about this case, please contact me via e-mail at: mirko_vojnovic@yahoo , or via phone: 408-663-9883.

As I had already lost my company and source of income due to the perjurious activities of attorneys Kennedy and Costa and that I stand to lose my home and shelter for my daughter at the beginning of September 2011, I am planning to go on hunger strike with the support of certain foreign government. I am sure that negative publicity will not be for anybody’s benefit.

Sincerely,

_______________________

Mirko Vojnovic


[1] Even though the referred inaction took place during Dolores Carr’s tenure, I am also aware of the fact that Karyn Sinunu Towery supported your nomination for the Office of District Attorney.

.

And king sent his trusted minister to solve the problem

Or did he send a jester? You be the judge…

.

Pay attention to Mr. Chase’s definition of a “temporary job”. It is the job that “does not last forever”. How hilarious is that? 🙂

..

.

And simple pauper took the stand…

… to seek for justice based on the law of the land.

.

9/12/2011

Santa Clara,CA

Dear Mr. Chase,

I received your letter in which you inform me that you are “declining to take further action on (my) complaints”.

First I would like to apologize for sending you an incomplete “Motion to Set Aside Order After Hearing Re: Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Set One”.  It only came to my attention that FedEx Kinko’s copier “swallowed” few pages out of that document when I filed the complaint with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

I am positive that one of the pages was page 00007 of Exhibit 2, in which you can find “Contractor Employment Agreement” and that is in stark contrast with the first job offer letter on page 00005. This Contractor’s agreement can be called “TEMPORARY” but the first one was NOT.  Wife was given permanent position first time but she lost her job because of excessive vacationing and vacationing plans. She was re-hired second time as a contractor only because one of the ladies from the department went on a maternity leave. Even that Contract was open ended, and wife ended it on July 13, 2006 just three days before she left on yet another seven week vacation that she scheduled in February when she still had permanent job offer. Wife and her attorneys knew that, and yet they claimed wife only had a “temporary” job. Not only that, attorney Costa committed subordination of perjury by having Ms. Hannah Han sign her Declaration, that the attorney Costa wrote.

What puzzles me even more is that you did not find curious that some of the pages in written Declaration were missing, too. For anybody who was carefully reading the material, that would open some questions and would contact the person who filed those documents for clarification. You failed to do so. That signals to me that the intention was from the beginning to make this complaint go away and use whatever rationalization to do so. I have experienced that with your office in the past.

Second curious point is that you “interviewed a witness”, who was probably contradicting my claims and that you did not contact me to confront his or her statements. Again this is not zealous approach that is required from the attorneys when they take the case.

You also write: “Additionally, the word “temporary“ is ambiguous. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether the declarants used that word according to strict statutory definition or its common everyday meaning”. Anybody who works in the industry, when they see the first job offer, would tell you that it was for a PERMANENT position with three months probation, not a TEMPORARY one.

Even Mr. Michelangelo Lecce (Operations Manager with Samsung Hospitality America Inc., tel 408-544-4562) told me in person that the job offer was for a permanent position.

Statutory definition and common every day meaning of that job offer was and is PERMANENT position. It is well known in industry what temporary position is and attorneys have a duty not to mislead the judge, otherwise they are committing perjury. Material matter means pertinent matter, and attorney Kennedy’s and Costa’s claims were definitely pertinent in this matter.

Third point, you wrote: “Your ex-wife’s job certainly was temporary in the sense that it was sporadic and it did not last forever.”

FOREVER??? Mr. Chase, did you even read what you wrote? Whose job lasts forever? Does that mean that you are TEMPORARY DDA? Is your job going to last forever? Your statement was ridiculous to say the least.

Fourth point is that this was not the first perjurious claim by attorneys Kennedy and Costa. As I have written in my letter to Mr. Jeffrey Rosen, one other incident (and there are more minor ones) involves attorneys claiming that I had not provided any documentation regarding community interest in the company I was working for. I hope your office still has the documents I submitted; if not I will be happy to provide them to you.

However, your failure to even mention that point is another indication that your office just wishes this matter to go away.

Based on all of the above, I find that DA’s office is again trying to dismiss the case for some internal reasons. I will be filing official complaint against Santa Clara DA’s Office with the Office of Attorney General tomorrow.

Respectfully,

_________________________

Mirko Vojnovic

NOTE: The complete “Motion to Set Aside Order After Hearing Re: Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Set One”is included with this letter.

.

The End!

… or, is it? 🙂

.

.

NOTE:  For those who would like to see complete documentation sent to DA’s office, you can find them from the links below.

September 13, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 1 Comment

First, deny everything… and if that doesn’t work


.

.

Send some letters…

.

And if that doesn’t work…

Attack some tires!

.

.

.

Well, this might have worked…

… if I was a Chicken Little. But, my “fight or flight” instinct says FIGHT when I’m threatened and I know the cause is just.

.

NOTE:

My tire went flat less than one mile away from my driveway. No puncturing object was ever found and it would be strange to run over a nail that does not puncture your front tire, but attack your rear tire instead. On top of that, puncture hole is in the dead center of the tire. How likely is that?

Both incidents were reported to local FBI office and names of potential suspects were provided.

Let’s play the game gentlemen! 🙂

September 11, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 1 Comment

How to track an Invisible Elephant?


Use —> Google <— , lots of  “elbow grease”, and of course… have “Preparation H” handy, ’cause you’ll be spending lots of time sitting in front of the computer. .

.

Here we go:

.

  1. Mr. and Mrs. Attorney commit perjury and you try to get the remedy through official “remedy procedure”.
  2. You are instructed to “File a Complaint with the State Bar of California”.
  3. You do that and wait.
  4. You are instructed to “File with the District Attorney Office”.
  5. You do that and wait.
  6. You call them up to inquire about your complaint.
  7. You are instructed to wait more.
  8. … and more.
  9. And then one day letters come to inform you that your Complaints are rejected.
  10. Then you start to wonder…
  11. Then you start to research.
  12. Then you find:

. .

.
.

Just follow the trail on the chart and pieces start to fall into place.

.

You be the judge!

September 11, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | 2 Comments

Curious case of $Benjamin CalBar


So, this is how it goes…

Some guy by the name of F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a short novel about some guy named Benjamin Button who ages in reverse. Then some guy by the name of David Fincher directed a movie where some guy by the name of Brad Pitt played Benjamin and some lady by the name of Cate Blanchett played the love of his life. Both of them died in the end.  As a result of all that effort some guy from The New York Observer by the name of Rex Reed wrote that this is “A movie that must be experienced. A monumental achievement”.

Monumentally experienced, indeed.   In this production of docu drama, the main character is $Benjamin (as on a dollar bill) and his curious connections with other main characters.  Time is his weapon, and his opponents are, hopefully, aging out of existence (doesn’t matter in which direction).   Keep in mind, tragedy is that $Benjamin and his buddies are not supposed to be actors, but responsible members of our legal community.

.

This is my latter to California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tni Cantil-Sakauye regarding malversations within the State Bar of California and how powerful insiders protect their protegees.

.

Santa Clara,CA

August 16, 2011

Chief Justice Tani Cantil
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister St
San Francisco,CA94102

 

Re:   State Bar of California, inquiry number: 10-28699, 11-0-13436 (Kennedy), 11-0-13437 (Costa)

Dear Chief Justice,

My name is Mirko Vojnovic and I’m writing this letter convinced that my complaint to the State Bar of California against attorneys Stefan P. Kennedy and Tamara T. Costa who committed perjury in case Vojnovic v. Vojnovic in Santa Clara Family Court was closed without any basis.

As the California Supreme Court is charged with overseeing the State Bar of California, it is imperative that you be made aware of these facts and issues.

Attorneys Kennedy and Costa committed several acts of perjury during their engagement in my divorce case, but for the sake of simplicity and because evidence to prove perjury was very clear, I limited my initial complaint to only one example.

Former State Bar employees, Chief Trial Counsel  James Towery (who was forced to resign amid ethics probe on July 1st, 2011) and Assistant Chief Trial Counsel Djinna Gochis (who was fired on July 8th, 2011) dismissed my complaint as a personal favor to those attorneys, regardless of the obvious conflict of interest they had when they made their decisions.

Attorney Costa was employee at Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel, a law firm where James Towery was a senior partner prior to his nomination as the Chief Trial Counsel. At the same time attorney Kennedy hired an “expert witness” Daniel Fenton in the same case. Daniel Fenton is a son of late Lewis Fenton, who was one of the founders of the said law firm.  Even State Bar at one point admitted that James Towey had a conflict of interest in evaluating my complaint.

Further, taking into the account James Towery’s long lasting connections and influence with/within the State Bar (President 1995-1996, Chief Trial Counsel 2011); Towery’s close ties with the former State Bar President Howard Miller (Member of Board of Governors 2006 – 2009, President 2009 – 2010), and his connections and influence with/within the State Bar; and Djinna Gochis’ long lasting employment with the State Bar (Assistant Chief Trial Counsel, Intake Unit Manager 2001 – 2004,Assistant Chief Trial Counsel, Manager, 2004 – 2011), it is fair to conclude that Djina Gochis had strong personal and professional ties with James Towery and therefore had a conflict of interest in my case against attorneys Kennedy and Costa.

Also, Ms. Gochis, prior to making her decision  never asked for any additional explanation, or the complete original documentation that I offered to support my claims, or any additional evidence to clarify any questions that she might have had regarding my claims.

The facts stated above, her sudden dismissal from office shortly after Towery’s resignation, combined with her unqualified reasons for case dismissal, hastily made on the first working day after she officially took over the case (Fourth of July weekend between Towery’s resignation on Friday, July 1st, 2011, and her letter dated July 5th, 2011, Tuesday) only confirm this conclusion

.

California State Bar Case

In my complaint I presented to the State Bar documents supporting that:.

  1. Attorneys Kennedy and Costa made false claims to the court, given under oath and in writing where they claimed “temporary” nature of my ex-spouse’s employment in order to justify her extensive vacationing during which she was receiving child and spousal support as if she was unemployed..
  2. Documents that prove their claims were fraudulent; ex-spouse’s original job offer and  W-2 forms..
  3. Documents that prove that the attorneys had previous knowledge their claims were fraudulent, thus intentionally misleading the court. I presented the documents that court file already had ex-spouse’s paystubs that listed her earnings as salary, as well as the original job offer where she was offered health and other benefits.

.

This is a clear violation of the Business and Professions Code 6106:

“The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension. If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefore.”

.

The latest update from the State Bar is that my complaint was dismissed by former Assistant Chief Trial Counsel Djinna Gochis.  In her letter dated July 5th, 2011 (three days before she was fired), Ms. Gochis wrote: “It is my assessment that your allegations would not result in discipline”.  In her letter she did not address any specifics, nor did she explain which evidence she disputed. (EXHIBIT 1 – Djinna Gochis’ letter)

Furthermore, Ms. Gochis’ response stated that she had written attorneys Kennedy and Costa and that their response was: “… you (Mirko Vojnovic) had made the same claims of misconduct to the civil court, which had not been sustained.”

That statement is false. I have never filed any documents withCivil Court in this matter. I only filed with the Santa Clara Family Court, and case was dismissed because I filed under the old CCP Section 128.5 (applicable to divorces filed before January 1991), instead of the current CCP Section 128.7. Dismissal was based on procedural error and had nothing to do with the facts presented in this matter.

However, attorneys’ new false[1] statement was enough for Ms. Gochis to conclude: ” The fact that a court, hearing your claims and objections, did not make a finding in your favor only confirms that assessment”.

At the same time that also means that Djinna Gochis was actively working on my complaint even during the period when James Towery was still with the State Bar, and State Bar still had a conflict of interest in dealing with my complaint, per their own admission.

.

History of the case:

It is worth mentioning that this is not the first time my case has been dismissed by the California State Bar.  The first time it was dismissed was on February 7th, 2011, by James Towery, former Chief Trial Counsel (ethics probe: Miller-Lack-Girardy). His claim was that: “ … the judge did not make any findings against the attorneys”. I challenged this reasoning because it is not written anywhere in the State Bar rules.  I also pointed out that Mr. Towery had conflict of interest because attorney Costa was his employee at Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel, and attorney Kennedy used Daniel Fenton as an “expert” witness in my case.

After my complaint the case was reinstated and was handed over to Djinna Gochis.  She admitted that “… the judge not making findings against the attorneys” does not constitute grounds for dismissal and acknowledged State Bar’s conflict of interest. Early June 2011 she appointed outside examiner Gail Charles to investigate my case.

Taking into the account my previous experience with the State Bar’s office of Chief Trial Counsel, it was only prudent of me to find out the eligibility of this outside resource. I contacted Gail Charles via e-mail asking her to clarify whether she had any conflict of interest in this case. She did not respond positively to my inquiry and I informed Ms. Gochis that I would like State Bar to find another outside examiner.

After James Towery left the State Bar on July 1st, 2011, Ms. Gochis concluded, in her letter dated July 5th, 2011, that: “Any claim of conflict (of interest) is now moot” and that she can make a decision in my case.  I strongly disagree with her conclusion for the reasons stated above.

.

Conclusion:

Current reshuffling at the State Bar uncovered years of abuse and personal favoritism among the high ranking officials of the State Bar. It was only after they became too greedy and when they stepped on some very powerful toes (Dole Food Company, which brought the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ involvement; CaliforniaALL money laundering, just to name the few) those things came to light.

But what about all those ordinary people who had been taken to the cleaners by dishonest and downright criminal attorneys? Those people have destroyed more families and children’s future then what they suffer in this economic downturn.  I’ve written a study based on government census data and Nolo press of how much money is embezzled in family courts acrossCaliforniaevery year. We are talking here about 1.1 billion dollars (EXIBIT 2). That is a dirty business that destroys the very fabric of our own society and if it continues unchecked our children will pay the price.

I’m talking from experience. I spent close to $160K in my divorce (my lifetime savings) fighting false accusations and fighting for my child; my business was destroyed in the process and I’m left without any means to support myself. Wherever I turned (over 6 years period) I came across, either personal favoritism or indifference.  Whatever checks and balances were built into the legal system (State Bar, CJP, DA’s office, Appellate Court) those things do not work unless one has unlimited amount of money to hire more attorneys or has backing of some high ranking official.  Honor and moral integrity have been sacrificed to simple survivalism too often these days.  People are disillusioned to fight for their rights. They “cut their loses” and try to disappear from the spot light as fast as they can.

.

Great Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Become the change you want to see in the World”.

My child deserves better future; I will not stop fighting this corruption and injustice.

.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCaliforniathat the foregoing is true and correct.

_________________________

Mirko Vojnovic

2335 Menzel Place

Santa Clara,CA95050


[1] I strongly disagree with the statement given to me by the State Bar Complaint Specialist Lisa, on July 7th, 2011, regarding State Bar’s practice that accused attorneys’ response is “privileged information” and that it can not be reviewed by the person who made the complaint. As it can be seen in this case, attorneys made another false claim in order to protect themselves.

September 11, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Judge Neal Cabrinha evades prosecuting perjury


Perjury:  It’s what keeps all courts ticking.  Perjury is the underlying basis of most legal actions, and the bastard child in Family Court.  Seldom, perhaps never has a Family Court judge referred to the DA an instance of perjury in a family court matter. Family Court judges know the DA is not likely to prosecute.  Ergo, perjury is and remains a winning and sometimes profitable tactic.  (quote)

.

All of us who entered into divorce proceedings (willingly or unwillingly) have been faced with deception and curious indifference that judges exhibit when they encounter it.

As each one of us is the best authority when it comes to knowing our own experience, I will try to  summarize one (out of many) count of obvious fraud and perjury committed in my divorce proceedings committed by the opposing attorneys.

.

NOTE:        Attached documents enlarge when you click on them.

.

Brief intro:

  • Ex-spouse spends 142 days (equivalent to 20 weeks) on vacation in 2 years period.
  • Upon her return from the first 9 weeks of vacation, ex-spouse starts a job in November, 2006.  In December of the same year, she leaves for a 2 week vacation and then returns to work. In July of the following year, ex-spouse quits job and embarks on another 7 week vacation. During most of that time she is receiving child and spousal support as if she was unemployed. Her two attorneys at the time justified her 7 week vacation by claiming that her job was temporary, and that she took the vacation in between jobs.
.

Ok… Let’s start now with “twisting and turning”

Here is what the opposing attorney wrote in his declaration:

 

.

And repeated in his trial brief which he signed under penalty of perjury:

.

But, … that is not all:

  • Attorneys for ex-spouse went as far as obtaining the Declaration from her former supervisor to testify that her job was temporary.
  • Attorney Stefan Kennedy’s co-counsel, Tamara Costa, drafted the Declaration and sent it to ex-spouse’s supervisor to sign.
  • Under penalty of perjury the supervisor testified that ex-spouse’s job was temporary.
  • Attorney Kennedy signed his Trial Brief “under penalty of perjury”.
  • Everything looks convincing and legitimate, doesn’t it? 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.

Not so fast!

I subpoenaed ex-spouse’s work record and received her Job Offer, W-4 and W-2 forms. Clearly, wife’s job offer was for a permanent position. Ex-spouse had already been receiving substantial spousal and child support in addition to money received from bank accounts separation and half of the house buyout (over $300K cash) and didn’t have a need to work; she instead took extended vacations.

.

  • Wife obviously knew the nature of her employment was not temporary, but did wife mislead her attorneys Kennedy and Costa?
  •  Apparently not!
  • Court records show that wife’s Job Offer was on file before wife’s attorneys made their claim.
  • Court records also show that copy of wife’s paycheck was on file before lawyers made the claim. Description of earnings states: SALARY!
  • Wife’s attorneys knew they were misleading the Court!

.

.

Now, for the funny part…

When this was brought up in family court, how did the judge handle the situation?

  • At January 4th, 2011, hearing judge Neal Cabrinha from Santa Clara Family Court finds that attorneys committing perjury is NOT RELEVANT!

 

.

.

  • At April 5th, 2011, hearing judge Cabrinha refused to hear oral motion for acknowledgement that attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa committed perjury.
  • It was becoming obvious that judge Cabrinha was avoiding the issue of attorneys’ committing perjury and I decided to put him in a position when he would be forced to “stop beating around the bush”.
.
  • On June 14, 2011, I filed the Motion for the Order that would be specific in qualifying the attorneys’ conduct:

Does the Court acknowledge that attorneys Stefan Kennedy and Tamara Costa lied to the Court regarding “temporary” nature of Respondent’s employment … based on the evidence presented, regardless of what impact or “relevancy” such fraud had, may or may not have on the Order for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, or any other  order ”.

  .

.

What happened next?

At August 16th, 2011, hearing judge Cabrinha denies the motion again stating that:

        This motion is not relevant to any pending motion.”

and that

        This issue has been handled 2 previous times”,

which is a misrepresentation of the facts. The issue has been avoided two previous times.

  

  • When I requested that Court issues a written order quoting the law that judge based his decision on; judge Cabrinha refused.
  •  The only Order that exists to this day is a Minute Order written by clerk after the hearing.
.
.

Letter to Santa Clara County Presiding Judge

Of course, I wrote a letter to Santa Clara County Presiding Judge Richard J. Loftus about Judge Cabrinha’s conduct. His answer was that he found :

”… nothing that was inappropriate or improper concerning the actions of Judge Cabrinha.”

.

.

I wrote back an reminded Judge Loftus of the California Code of Judicial Ethics:

Cannon 3D, Disciplinary Responsibilities

(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.*

(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY:

Appropriate corrective action could include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action if available, or a report of the violation to the presiding judge, appropriate authority, or other agency or body. Judges should note that in addition to the action required by Canon 3D(2), California law imposes additional reporting requirements regarding lawyers.

Judge Loftus never wrote back.

.

.

Conclusion:

On August 24th, 2011, complaint was filed against Judge Cabrinha with the office of California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, with the Center of Judicial Performance (CJP) and with the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris, for “aiding and abetting fraud” and for “public corruption”.

.

All cases are currently pending.

September 10, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , | 3 Comments

Fraud upon a Court. What is it?


.

There are days when I feel dumb. This is one of those days.

.

Please bear with me… it is a bit of a dry reading, but there are some valuable points to be remembered.

.

 

What is the role of the Court?

.

Here is what California Courts webpage state:

(http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/about/aboutjb.htm)

The judicial branch of government is charged with interpreting the laws of the State of California. It provides for the orderly settlement of disputes between parties in controversy, determines the guilt or innocence of those accused of violating laws, and protects the rights of individuals.

.

.

How does law define fraud and perjury?

.

.

Definition of perjury can be found in California Penal Code:

Section 118a:

Any person who, in any affidavit taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case then pending or thereafter to be instituted, in any particular manner, or to any particular fact, and in such affidavit willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

.

.

What does the existing law state?

.

CA Family Code Section 2122

The grounds and time limits for a motion to set aside a judgment, or any part or parts thereof, are governed by this section and shall be one of the following:

(b) Perjury. An action or motion based on perjury in the preliminary or final declaration of disclosure, the waiver of the final declaration of disclosure, or in the current income and expense statement shall be brought within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the perjury.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

This rule does not limit a court’s power to:

(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

.

.

What is fraud on (upon) the Court?

.

.     

  •       “While an attorney should represent his client with singular loyalty, such loyalty does not demand that he act dishonestly or fraudulently; on contrary, attorney’s loyalty to court, as officer thereof,  demands integrity and honesty in dealing with the court, and when he departs from such standard in conduct of case, he perpetrates fraud upon the court.” Kupferman v Consolidated Research & Mfg. Corp. (1972, CA2 NY) 459 F2d 1072, 16 FR Serv 2d 160, 19 ALR Fed 747.
  •         “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.
  •         “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934)

.

Law is clear:

Fraud on the Court (or upon the Court) is when attorney, the officer of the Court, commits fraud or perjury and any order or judgment should be set aside. 

.That is in principle, but many times in practice this is not upheld.


September 9, 2011 Posted by | Family Law | , , , | 2 Comments